E 
 
 83. 836 
 
 E93s 
 
 EVEREH 
 
 SPEECH OF HORACE 
 EVEREH, OF VERMONT
 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS ANGELES
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HORACE ETERETT, 
 
 O F V E R M O N T 
 
 iir.i.ivJ.iiEn 
 
 !N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, IN COMMITTEE OF THE AVHOI.F, 
 
 THE INDIAN ANNUITY BILL, 
 
 Friday, JiiNe 3, 1836. 
 
 \VASHlNGTON: 
 
 NATIONAL INTELLIGENCLR OFFICE. 
 1836.
 
 
 SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. EVERETT said, lie had not expected to address the House on any 
 subject connected with our Indian relations until a few days ;igo. The in- 
 quiry into the causes of the Indian hostiUties had been l^rought before the 
 (Jommittee on Indian Affairs, and the papers relating to it liad been referred 
 to him for examination. He had Jntended before the close of the session to 
 present his views in the shape of a report. When, however, this aniendment 
 was adopted in that committee — an amendment placing at the disposal of 
 the Executive more than a million of dollars, for (he removal of the whole 
 Creek nation by force — in violation of an existing treaty, — he had felt him- 
 self compelled to change his purpose, and to present his views to the House 
 whenever that amendment should be considered. Should that pass, a re|)ort 
 Wiiidd be to but little purpose. 
 
 /J4e regretted tiiat this extraordinary appropriation should have been at- 
 tached to an ordinary appropriation bill. It placed liim in the dilemma of 
 being charged with obstructing the passage, of the bill, of the urgency of 
 which no one was more sensible than himself;\or with the responsibility of 
 permitting a measure to pass in silence, whicli^iu his conscience, he believed 
 repugnant to our most sacred obligations, and of the most hazardous tenden- 
 cy. He had desired that this appropriation should have been reported in a 
 separate bill. Had it been so, this bill would have passed as soon as it was 
 reported, and all delay would have been avoided. He did not, therefore, 
 consider himself responsible for the delay. This was not the first time that 
 important measures had been attempted to be carried through on the back 
 of a general appropriation bill. The House was sufficiently forev-arned of 
 the consequences. The blame would rest on liiose who first interposed the 
 obstacle. Mr. E. said, th.e country being in fact in a state of war, without 
 stopping to inquire by whose fault we had become involved in it, he had 
 voted for every appropriation asked for defence — and as soon as it was 
 asked. But the present question relates to the future — and to consequences 
 which demand that it should not pass without investigation. 
 
 iVIr. Everett requested the Clerk to read the twelfth article of the Creek 
 tr^ty of the 24th of March, 1832. 
 (*' Art. 12. The United States are desirous that the Creeks should remove 
 to the country west of the Mississippi, and join their countrymen there; and 
 for this purpose, it is agreed, that, as fast as the Creeks are prepared to emi- 
 grate, they shall be removed at the expense of the United States, and shall 
 receive subsistence while upon the journey, and lor one year after tiieir arri- 
 val at their new homes: Provided, however. That this article shall nut be con- 
 strued so as to compel any Creek Indian to emigrate, but they shall be free 
 to go or stay, as they please.") 
 
 This, Mr. Chairman, is the obligation we have assumed; this is the right 
 we have guarantied to every Creek Indian — to go or sini/, as lie pleases. 
 To render this right of value, to enable the Creeks to subsist themselves where 
 they were, if they chose to remain, the treaty secured to ninety principal 
 chiefs, each, 640 acres of land, and to every other head of a Creek family
 
 320 acres. These reservations are their homes, on which they are entitled 
 to remain. But from these, it is now proposed to remove them by force. 
 
 The amendment proposes to remove 21,000 Creeks; that is the estimated 
 number of the whole nation. It does not, in terms, propose to remove them 
 by force; that purpose is, however, avowed explicitly in the letter of the Sec- 
 retary of War to the committee, asking for the appropriation; and if the ap- 
 propriation is granted, the Executive will consider himself authorized to use 
 it, and will use it for the purpose for which it was asked. This letter is dated 
 on the 19th of May, and states: " The state of affairs among the Creek In- 
 " dians in Alabama has induced the President to direct the necessary meas- 
 " ures to be taken for their removal. Heretofore, the instructions have been 
 " in conformity with the treaty — to remove them as they were voluntarily 
 " prepared to go. But actual hostilities have commenced, and it is essential 
 " to their existence, as well as to the safety of the settlements in contact with 
 " them, that they should be established in their country west of the Missis- 
 " sippi, without delay. The right to remove them by force, if necessary, re- 
 " suits from the attitude in which they have placed themselves, by the com- 
 " mencement of hostilities," &-c. 
 
 Here, then, Mr. Chairman, is our treaty obligation on the one hand, and 
 the power claimed on the other. On what ground is it claimed? It can be 
 claimed only on the ground that the treaty is dissolved by a war on the part 
 of the Creek nation. An act of hostility by an individual, or one of the 
 bands of the tribe, would not have that effect. No, sir; it must be a war be- 
 tween the Creek nation and the United States; that only would dissolve the 
 obligation of the treaty; and before this House sanctions the exercise of this 
 high power — this war power, of removing the whole Creek nation by force — 
 it should be satisfied that the Creek nation has made war upon us, as a na- 
 tional act. On what evidence is this House called upon to act? On a letter 
 from the Secretary of War to a committee, stating that actual hostilities have 
 commenced, unaccompanied by any evidence of the character or extent of 
 those hostilities. It gives us no facts, on which his declaration is founded, to 
 enable tlie House to judge if the right to remove the Creeks by force is justi- 
 fiable. Are we to act on this declaration? Are we to collect our facts from 
 newspapers, private letters, or rumors? and if we should, what do they all 
 amount to? From no source, that can be relied on, have I sufficient evi- 
 dence to believe that, at the date of this letter, any white man had seen 
 twenty-five Creeks embodied in arms. True, this is no evidence that 
 more have not been in arms. But I should not be surprised if it should 
 turn out that the whole number was then less than two hundred and fifty. 
 
 There is, however, some negative testimony. I will refer the commit- 
 tee to a semi-ofiicial publication in the Globe, of the 30th of May. It 
 states that " Colonel Hogan wrote, on the 24i.h of April, that there was no 
 " more disposition among the Creeks of the upper towns for hostilities than 
 " there was among the citizens of Washington, and that he did not believe 
 •' there was any such disposition among the Creeks of the lower towns." 
 This letter was received here on the 5th, and " on that day Governor Clay 
 " was again informed, that, should the Indians medifate hostilities, any force 
 •' he might find necessary to call out for the protection of the inhabitants 
 " would be received into the service of the United States. The same in- 
 " formation and the same authority was given to Governor Schley, on the 
 " 13th of May." This is the account of the Indian hostilities, as published 
 on the 30th of May. The orders to the Governors of Alabama and Georgia 
 do not refer to actual hostilities, but to meditated hosuWues. \
 
 But, sir, if a state of war exists, why has no communication of the fact been 
 made by the President? I do not go the length of saying there should be no 
 communication between the heads of the Departments and the committees of 
 this House. In matters of minor consequence, convenience requires it. But, 
 sir, on questions involving a change of our relations with nations with whom 
 we have treaties — on questions of peace and war — I hold that a head of De- 
 partment and committees of the House are not the proper organs of commu- 
 nication between the Executive and Congress. Such communication should 
 be made by the President, and to both Houses, to whom it appertains to take 
 order thereon. Measures new and important are not to be sprung upon the 
 House through a report of a committee. The President is the only constitu- 
 tional organ of communication between the Executive and Legislative Depart- 
 ments. It is his constitutional duty, " from time to time, to give to Congress 
 " information of the state of the Union, and to recommend such measures as 
 •' he shall judge expedient." Sir, I would hold him to this duty — to this re- 
 sponsibility. Jjf the House acts on its own motion, on its own information, it 
 acts on its own responsibility. That responsibility, for one, I am not willing, 
 in this instance, to assume. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I now offer an amendment, as a substitute for the amend- 
 ment of the committee. I do not propose to lessen the appropriation, but to 
 restrict its application. I do not make it a question of amount, but of prin- 
 ciple. v^ I am willing to give to the Executive ample means to remove all the 
 Indians, but p^ropose to divide the amount so that a part shall be applicable 
 to the removal of those who please to go, and the residue to those who may 
 be in arms; but that no part shall be applicable to those who are neither hos- 
 tile nor willing to remove. This amendment will be applicable to the Semi- 
 noles, as well as to the Creeks, and will also enable the Executive to resort 
 to pacific, as well as warlike measures, for their removal. 
 
 The amendment, as it came from the Senate, was for a removal of the 
 Creeks who should voluntarily assent to go, and was based on the removal 
 of 12,000. 
 
 For this purpose, in addition to an unexpended balance of $155,000 
 
 It appropriated the sum of - - - - 348,230 
 
 503,230 
 To this, the committee of the House have added, under the 
 call of the Secretary of War, on an estimate for remov- 
 ing the residue of the nation, - - - - 675,320 
 
 And to this may be added, for the removal of the 
 
 Seminoles, an unexpended balance of - - .$33,000 
 
 And an additional appropriation of - - 100,000 
 
 1,178,550 
 
 133,000 
 
 Making for the removal of the Creeks and Seminoles - $1,311,550 
 
 Should the substitute be adopted, the amendment will stand: " For the 
 removal of Creek Indians, and their subsistence for one year, including sub- 
 sistence for those recently removed, in addition to one hundred and fifty- 
 five thousand dollars of former appropriations, three hundred and forty- 
 eight thousand two hundred and thirty dollars, under the \2th article of the 
 Creek treaty of 1832.
 
 6 
 
 " For holding trccitus with the hostile Indians cast of the Jlississippi 
 river, and for their removal west of (hat river, six hundred and seventy-five 
 thousand three hundred and tiventy dollars.'*^ 
 
 Mr. Cliairnian, this presents the important question in relation to all the 
 hostile Indians, Creeks and Seininoles: — Shall force be the only means of 
 etTtcting their removal? I propose a pacific measure; and by the term in 
 the a[)proprialioH, "/or holding treaties,'''' to indicate to the Executive the 
 o|)inion of this Honst; — in the hope that it will not be disregarded. 
 y xlt seems to be taken for granted by some gentlemen that we cannot, con- 
 sistently with our national honor, hold treaties, or even attempt a pacification 
 of hostile Indians. "^ It is said by the gentleman from Alabama, (Mr. Lawler,) 
 that they nmst be tchippcd before they can be removed. What, sir! send 
 whipped Indians west of the Mississip|)i! Of tliat I shall have a word to say 
 hereafter. Our honor! JAVHiat of honor liave we gained already in our attempt 
 to whip theSeminoles'? Aiid what of honor would be^ained, if, by extermina- 
 tion, we make a grand finale of the huslile tribes? But, sir, this is also a 
 question of interest. I will thank the Clerk to state the amount already ap- 
 propriated on account of these Indian hostilities — [$2,620,000, besides ra- 
 tions to the starving inhabitants] — more will be immediately required. Add 
 to this the expense of another camtjaign — of an arm}' oi" 5,000. And to 
 this, the amount of the losses of the inhabitants of Florida and Alabama — 
 some millions more. This, though an individual loss, is not the less a loss 
 to the country. Possibly it may become a direct national loss. On that 
 question I do not intend to commit myself; but, sir, if the sufferers claim in- 
 demnity, they will, as their only ground, base their claims on the fact that their 
 loss was occasioned (to use the mildest phrase) by an improvident act of the 
 Government. In addition to all this, look to the loss uf human life. 
 (-Xt is evident, sir, that the Seminole war was the immediate cause of the 
 Creek hostilities. Other causes have no doubt concurred — causes of irrita- 
 tion, producing a pre-<.disposition to hostility, called into action by the suc- 
 cess of the Seminolesy What shall be done? Shall we fight it out to the last, 
 or attempt a pacification? Sir, in selecting our course, much will depei'.d on 
 the answer to the question, " is our quarrel justV'' And it is time this ques- 
 tion was answered. 
 
 In answering this (|nestion, I shall take occasion to inquire into ihf; 
 causes of the Seminole war. I shall stop where the war commenced, leav- 
 ing it for otliers to examine into the manner in which it has been conducted. 
 1 pass this over to the military gentlemen of the House — to the Committee 
 on Military Aflairs — to institute the proper inquiry. 1 have no doubt they will 
 do their duty. 
 
 Preliminary to (he investigation, I will suggest Us:o considerations, which 
 should be borne in mind during the investigation. UCJio first is, the unequal 
 terms on which we always treat with the Indian tribes — our superior intelli- 
 gence — their necessities — the fact that our treaties are, as they say, while men's 
 treaties, made in our lanauage, translated by our interpreters, and by them im- 
 perfectly understood and imperfeclly remembered. The other is, that we 
 are our own historians — we tell the whole story — they, |iarticidarly the Sem- 
 inoles, were refused permission to send a delegation here to lell their part of 
 the story. In reply to their application, they v{t'\X' told, " This made the 
 President angry ^ From considerations such as ihe*^, in all questions of 
 doubt, proper allowances should be made in their favori 
 
 I will also notice some things of minor importance, which may have had 
 an unfavorable influence:
 
 L- The eager desire of the whites to obtain their land. — General Eaton, in 
 liis letter of the 8lii oi" March, 1835, says — 
 
 " Tlie people here want the lands on which they (the Seminoles) reside; and they 
 will urge a rcmavA, fas uut nefas; and tiie Rig Swamp, whicli, in tlie treaty, is declared 
 to be tlie first of llieir country tfi_be vacated, is of high repute; and it is that on which 
 the eyes of speculators are fixed. ""^ 
 
 LJThe unprincipled desire to obtain their negroes. — General Thompson, in 
 his letter of the 28th of October, 1834, says — 
 
 vJijrhere are many very likely negroes in this nation; some of the whites in the adja- 
 cent settlements manifest a restless desire to obtain thenjjj.' and I have no doubt that 
 Indian-raised negroes now in possession of the whites, some of tlie negroes in the 
 nation, with some of tlie Indians, have been induced, by bribery or otherwise, to stir 
 up hostility among tiie Indians to t!ie intended emigration, for the purpose of detain- 
 ing the negroes here until the territorial jurisdiction shall be extended over the Indian 
 country, so as to enable fraudulent claimants to prosecute their claims in the Territorial 
 coijrts, Scc.'Vi 
 
 \_The opposing influence of the negroes, excited by the fear of their beiiig 
 sold to slave-dealers. — General Thompson, in his letter of the 27th of April, 
 1835, a letter of great interest, says — 
 
 •' Application was made to me this morning for permission to purchase negroes of 
 the Seminole Indians, under a letter from tlie Office of Indian Affairs, addressed to 
 General Call, in whicli the Commissioner says, as there is no law prohibiting the sale of 
 slaves by Indians, tliere is no necessity for the interference of the Department to allow 
 the Indians a privilege wiiich they already have.'*^ "The negroes in tlie nation dread 
 the idea of being transferred from their present st7*Te'"of ease and comparati\ig^ libertj, 
 to bondage and hard labor, under overseers on sugar and cotton plantations.^ They 
 have always had a great influence on the Indians. They live in villages, separate, and, in 
 many cases, remote from their owners, enjoying equal liberty with their owners, willi the 
 single exception that the slave supplies his owner annually, from the product of his little 
 field, with corn in projjorlion to the amount of the crop; in no instance tliat has come 
 to my knowledge, exceeding ten busliels: the residue is considered the property of the 
 slave. Many of these slaves have stocks of horses, cows, and hogs, with which the 
 Indian owner never assumes tlie right to intermeddle. I am tluis particular on this 
 |)(>int, that you may understand the true cause of the abhorrence of the negroes of even 
 the idea of anj' change; and tlie indulgence so extended by the owner to the slave will 
 enable you to credit the assertion that an Indian would almost as soon sell his child as 
 his slave, except wheTi in a state of intoxication." 
 
 On this occasion, sir, General Thompson did his duty — he refused permis- 
 sion to the applicants to purchase slaves, ur to say any tiling on the subject. 
 The answer to this letter is not among the papers in my possession. 
 
 In this investigation, I shall endeavor to confirie myself to our own record. 
 I regret, sir, that the documents just laid on your table are not printed, and 
 iu the hands of all the members, that they might go along with me, page by 
 page. I desired that tlie discussion siioidd bo delayed a day or two ibr that 
 purpose. But it is the pleasure of the House that the discussion shall now 
 proceed. 
 cl_"^n the Slh of January, 1821, the Creek treaty of Indian Springs was con- 
 cluded. At that time tlie Seminole band was a component part of the Creek 
 jialion. To this treaty I shall have occasion to refer hereal'ler. \ 
 ■ — On the ISth of September, 1823, the treaty of Camp MouTme was con- 
 cluded with the Seminoles, they having then separated from the Creeks. By 
 this treaty, we engaged to pay them annuities for twenty years, and guaran- 
 tied to them tlieir narrow limits. They were restricted irom tlie sea-coasf, 
 and confined to the hammocks and swamps, which they are now defending to 
 the last drop of blood. Miserable as their country is, they cling to it with the 
 grasp of death. This treaty, unless abrogated by a subsequent treaty, was 
 an existing treaty at the commencement of the present war.
 
 8 
 
 ^ On the 9ih of May, 1832, the Seminole treaty of Payne's Landing was 
 concluded. The Seminoles have alleged that it was forced upon them. But, 
 sir, in our own story I find no evidence of the fact; all that I find is, that at 
 that time they were in a state of starvation; we deemed it a fit occasion for 
 holding a treat}'. We were not, however, the cause of their famine; nor 
 were we accountable for its consequences. We did no more than to take all 
 due advantage of ihe fact. 
 
 I ask the Clerk to read the preamble and the 7ih article: 
 
 "The Seminole Indians, re^^arding with just respect the solicitude manifested by 
 the President of the United States for the improvement of their condition, by recom- 
 mending their removal to a country more suitable to their habits and wants than the 
 one they at present occupy in the Territory of Florida, are willing that their confiden- 
 tial chiefs, Jumper, Fuch-a-lus-ti-co-had-jo, Charley Emarlla, Coi-hadjo, Holati- 
 Emartla, Yaha-hadjo, Sam Jones, accompanied by their faithful interpreter, Abraham, 
 should be sent, at the expense of the United States, as early as convenient, to examine 
 the country assigned to the Creeks west of the Mississippi river; and should they be 
 satisfied with the character of that country, and of the favorable disposition of the 
 Creeks to rt-unile witii the Seminoles as one people, the articles of the compact and 
 agreement herein stipulated at Payne's Landing, on the Ocklewaha river, this ninth 
 day of May, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, between James Gadsden for 
 and in behalf of the United States, and the undersigned chief's and head men for and in 
 behalf of the Seminole Indians, shall be binding on the respective parties." 
 
 "Article vii. The Seminole Indians will remove within three (3) years after the 
 ratification of this agreement, and the expenses of their removal shall be defrayed by 
 the United States; and such subsistence shall also be furnished them, for a term not ex- 
 ceeding twelve (12) months, after their arrival at their new residence, as in tiie opin- 
 ion of the President their numbers and circumstances may require; the emigration to 
 commence as early as practicable in the year eighteen hundred and thirty-three (1833;) 
 and with those Indians occupying the Big Swamp, and other parts of the country, be- 
 yond the limits as defined in the second article of the treaty concluded at Camp Moul- 
 trie creek, so that the whole of that proportion of the Seminoles may be removed 
 within the year aforesaid; and the remainder of the tribe, in about equal proportions, 
 during the subsequent years of eighteen hundred and thirty-four and five, (1834 and 
 1835.)" 
 
 In relation to this treaty, I shall now, Mr. Chairman, endeavor to sustain 
 the three following positions: 
 
 I. That the treaty never became obligatory on the Seminoles. 
 
 II. That the Government have attempted to execute it contrary to their 
 own interpretation. 
 
 III. That they have attempted to execute it by an act of war, before the 
 commission of any hostile act on the part of the Seminoles. 
 
 If I sustain these positions, I shall have shown, satisfactorily, the causes of 
 the Seminole war; and answered the question, "is our quarrel just"!" 
 
 The treaty of Payne's Landing never became obligatory on the Semi- 
 noles, 
 Z' 1. Because the condition precedent, on which alone it could become oblig- 
 atory, was not fulfilled. 
 
 That condition, in substance, was, that the Seminole delegation should, 
 
 after visiting the western country, be satisfied with the character of the coun- 
 
 / try to which they proposed to emigrate; and, also, of the favorable disposi- 
 
 / tion of the Creeks (who were entitled to the country, and with whom it was 
 
 proposed they should hereafter reside,) to re-unite with the Seminoles as 
 
 one people. 
 
 The delegation visited the western country, and, before their return, or hav- 
 ing any communication with their tribe, on the 28th March, 1833, at Fort Gib- 
 son, signed articles with our commissioners, by which they expressed themselves 
 
 "7 
 
 /
 
 satisfied with the character of the country, and of the favorable disposition of 
 the Creeks to unite with the Seminoles as one people. This, on the face 
 of it, with the exception of the change of the word V7iite for re-uniic, is a 
 literal declaration of what was required by the treaty. But was it a substan- 
 tial compliance? was it an act of which, in good faith, we ought to avail our- 
 selves] Is the complaint of the Indians without cause? General Thompson, in 
 his letter of the 28th October, 1834, states it in their own language: " Juni- 
 " per says, they agreed at Payne's Landing to go and examine the country; 
 *' but they were not bound to move to it, until the nation should agree to it, 
 " after the return of the delegation." 
 
 The delegation were their confidential chiefs — the agents of the Seminoles; 
 or, if you please, umpires authorized to determine for them. But, sir, were 
 not the Seminoles to be heard before them, as well as the United States? 
 They were not heard. The delegation went to visit the west, and tiiere, be- 
 fore returning to consult the Seminoles, surrounded by the whiles, signed 
 their determination. The Seminoles complained, and with justice, that the de- 
 termination was made on an ex parte hearing. On their return, the delegation 
 reported that they were satisfied with the country, and the Creeks there. 
 But their objection was to the hostile disposition of the surrounding tribes 
 — that they saw scalps brought in. They were then told, treaties would be 
 made with the hostile tribes, of which they would be informed. Sir, they 
 claimed a right to be heard, before their delegation made a final decision. 
 
 But, sir, this is not the most material part of tlie objection. A part of the 
 condition was, that the delegation should be satisfied with the disposition of 
 the Creeks — of the Creek nation to re-unite with them as one people. I 
 now ask the attention of the committee to the facts. 
 
 By a treaty concluded with the Creek nation east of the Mississippi, on 
 the 24th March, 1832, almost cotemporanoous with the Seminole treaty, the 
 country west of the Mississippi was secured to the Creek nation. The emi- 
 gration commenced; and it appears, by a document annexed to the report 
 ' of the Committee of Indian Affairs of February, 1834, that the whole number 
 of the Creeks who had emigrated to the west was only 2,459, while the num- 
 ber remaining east was 22,638. The assent of the delegation to the supple- 
 mental treaty, declaring themselves satisfied, was yielded on the 28th March, 
 1833; they had, therefore, consulted only this sn)all portion west. This was 
 ! known to our commissioners at the lime, and to our Government before the 
 ratification of the treaty. This is no technical ground of objection. But a 
 consequence resulted, that formed a substantial reason why the Seminoles 
 should decline to emigrate. 
 
 While a component part of the Creek nation, the Seminoles were a sepa- 
 rate band, and, as such, were united with the Creeks. The treaty of Payne's 
 Landing contemplated a reunion — not an amalgamation. By the treaty 
 concluded with the Creeks west, on the 14lh February, 1833, and the sup- 
 plemental Seminole treaty of 28th March, J 833, the Seminoles were to be 
 located by themselves, and a tract of land was designated for their location. 
 Their rights to any location depended entirely on the assent of the Creek 
 nation. The Creeks west assented for themselves only; but, in relation to 
 this, the Creeks east were neither consulted nor informed. The fact of this 
 treaty of the Creeks west was concealed from them. Perhaps the term con- 
 cealed is too strong: it was, however, not communicated to them. These, 
 as inferences, are drawn from a document which I will now ask the Clerk to 
 read. It is a letter from General Eaton to the Secretary of War, of the 8th 
 March, 1835, to a portion of which I will ask the attention of the committee. 
 
 \
 
 10 
 
 "There is anollier difficulty in the minds of these people: a separate tract, out of 
 the Creek lands, jias been set apart for their homes. Tliere is a ratified treaty in 
 your ofiice, made by General Stokes, ElKwortii, and Schermerhorn, with the Creeks, 
 whicli authorizes the location. JVhile negotiating with the Indians last year, at "Wash- 
 ington, I inulersto<id the Creeks c^/scorererf this act, and had sent word to the Seminole 
 bands, that while they were willing to receive them in their limits as a portion of their 
 nation, tliey would not siifl'L-r them to enjoy any separate allotment of tlieir soil. This, 
 too, has intiinidaled them, and is, I dare say, the essential cause of tlieir rehictance to 
 go off." 
 
 Yes, sir, in the winter of 1S34, ihey discovered tiiis western Creek treaty, 
 making the separate location: they rejected it; they had a right so to do; 
 they sent word to the Seniinoles thai they would not agree to it. And tliis, 
 General Eaton says, was, in his opinion, the essential cause of their refusal 
 to go off. But huw was this inateriaH What objection could the Sen)inoles 
 iiave to an amalgamation with the Creek nation? I ask the attention of the 
 committee to the grounds of their objection. 
 
 ,By the Creek treaty of 1821, before mentioned, it was agreed that the sum 
 of $250,000 of the money to bo paid to the Creeks for the cession of their 
 lands should be paid to citizens of Georgia, for property taken or destroyed 
 by the Creeks (then including the Sen)inoles) prior to the passage of the in- 
 lercourse act of 1802, and which was accordingly reserved, and subsequently 
 paid. The spoliation provided for must have taken place nineteen years 
 before this treaty; and, during these nineteen years, individuals claimed and 
 possessed the property originally taken from the citizens of Georgia. The 
 ireaty on the part of the Creeks could never have been intended to disturb 
 the rights of individuals of the tribes, or of any of its bands. Between the 
 date of that treaty, and that of the Seminole treaty of 18o2, no such claim 
 was set up. In the mean time, intermarriages had taken place between the 
 Seminoles and their slaves. The first we hear of any claim was prior to the 
 ratification of the treaty of Paync^'s Landing. General Thompson, in his re- 
 port of the 1st January, 1834, to Governor Duval, and by him enclosed to the 
 Commissioner of Indian Affaiis on the 20lh, says: " The principal causes 
 " which operate to cherish this feeling hostile to emigration are, first, tlie fe<jr 
 " that their reunion with the Creeks, which will subject them to the govcrn- 
 " ment and control of the Creeks' national council, will be a surrender of a 
 " lar2:(- negro property to the Creeks as antagonist claimants." " Tiie Creeks' 
 " claim to the negroes now in possession of the Seminoles grows out of the 
 " tiT.aiv of 1821." " They have an agent now in the Seminole ccuinMy urging 
 " the claim of the Creeks to negroes, or their descendants, which formed a 
 " part o\' the consideration for which the Creeks consented to pay the 
 " $250,000 to the Georgia claimants." It will be seen that the claim thus 
 brought forward in 1834 referred to transactions of thirty-two years' stand- 
 injr, and was for negroes taken, and their descendants — for the wives and 
 (iiiidren of the Seminoles. 
 
 General Thompson, in his letter to the Commissioner of Indian Afi'airs of 
 the I5;li July, 1834, again refers to this claim in connexion with the subject 
 of amalgamation: " If, as a distinct body, under the protection and control 
 "of their own chiefs, located on the territory assigned to them adjoining the 
 " Creeks, the Seminoles would be afraid that a general council of the two 
 " tribes would deprive them of tlie slaves in question, it seems to me that 
 " their fears could not fail to be greatly increased by a promiscuous introduction 
 " of them among the Creeks, which would reduce their chiefs to privates, and 
 " subject them and their slaves w.ovc certainly to the entire control of the 
 " Creeks." Thus, sir, it appears their objection to amalgamation was
 
 11 
 
 founded on substantial reasons. Nor wore tliey bound by the treaty to amal- 
 gamate with the Creeks; nor were the Creeks east bound by the act of the 
 Creeks west, assigning them a separate location. The country west was 
 ceded to the whole Creek nation; no part of it could be ceded to the Senii- 
 noles, without the assent of the Creek nation; neither the first ten Creek emi- 
 grants, nor the tirst hundred, nor the first 2,459, had the right to cede the 
 whole or any part of the territory. 
 
 Thus, Mr. Chairman, it appears, in point of fact, that the delegation signed 
 the supplemental treaty, at Fort Gibson, surrounded by our commissioners 
 and people, without consulting their tribe; that they never consulted the 
 Creeks east; that no location was made tiiat was autliorizcd by the Creek 
 nation; and that this was known to the commissioners at the time the sup- 
 plemental treaty was signed. In addition to this, that the Creeks east in- 
 sisted on their amalgamation, the Creeks west had agreed only to a reunion; 
 that the Seminoles, for substantial reasons, refused to amalgamate, and that 
 all this was known to our Government before the ratification of the treaty. 
 *,The act, then, of the delegation, however formal, was an act done without 
 authority, and, in its operation, in fraud of the rigiils of the Seminoles. Can, 
 then, the United States, honestly or decently avail themselves of this act as 
 evidence of the fulfilment of t!ie condition precedent? 
 
 It should be borns in mind that the question raised is between the parties 
 to the treaty, and not between one of the parties and its citizens, or between 
 the executive and the legislative power. 
 
 The next objection to the validity of the treaty is, that it was not ratified 
 on our part, and an appropriation made to carry it into efliecl, until two years 
 had elapsed; during which period, it was, by its terms, to have been in the 
 course of execution. 
 
 V._The treaty was concluded on the 9tii May, 1832, and was received on tiie 
 29th; and during the session of Congress, which adjourned on the 16lh July, 
 provision was made for commissioners on our part to meet the Seminole dele- 
 gation at Fort Gibson, in October, 1833. At what time either arrived tliere, 
 or for what reason the supplemental treaty, or that with the Creeks west, 
 was delayed, does not appear. The treaty with the Creeks west was 
 signed at Fort Gibson on the 14th February, 1S33, and liie supplemental 
 Seminole treaty on tlie 28th March following, and received at Washington on 
 the 28th of October of the same vear. The Seminole treaties were ratified 
 on the 8th and 12tli April, 1834. " 
 
 From this statement of fact'j, it will be seen that the treaty of 1832 might 
 have been ratified in 1832, and an appropriation been made provisionally for 
 its execution in 1833. The condition precedent was to be fulfilled by an act 
 on the part of the Seminoles, and required no subsequent assent on our part. 
 
 On these facts I submit, as an opening argument against the validity of 
 the treaty, an extract from the letter of General Eaton, of the Sth of March, 
 1835, which has been read: 
 
 "I li.ive received your letter, wltli its enclosures, rel.itivc to removinij tlie Seminole 
 Indians, under the provisions of the treaty of 1832, hut whicli was not ratified until 1834. 
 I pray you, does not this circumstance raise a doubt whetlier, by strict rule, tlie treaty 
 can be considered valid and bindinc^? Our Indian compacts must be construed and 
 controlled by the rules which civilized people practise, because, in all our actions with 
 them, we have ))ut the treaty-making machinery in operation, precisely in tiie same 
 way, and to the same extent, that it is employed with the civilized powers of Europe.^ 
 Tiie rule practised upon by us has been, and is, that the ratification shall take place 
 either within an agreed time, or in a reasoTiable time. When Florida was ceded, in 
 1819, the Cortes failed to exchange ratifications within the prescribed time, and after-
 
 12 
 
 wards, at a subsequent session, it was assented to by the Spanish Cortes. The sense of 
 this Government was, that the first ratification made by the Senate was inoperative, and 
 again the subject was submitted by Mr. Monroe for the action and approval of the 
 Senate. This appears to me to be a precedent that runs parallel with this Indian com- 
 pact. It says, one-third shall remove the first year, viz: as early as practicable in 1833; 
 and one-third in the next, and the next, 1834 and '35. Now, until 1834, when the 
 ratification took place, the treaty w.is a dead letter. It is in their power now to plead, 
 and say, we were ready in 1833 and '34; and hearing nothing of your determination, 
 we had a right to suppose you did not mean to stand by the treaty, and accord- 
 ingly our minds have changed. With civilized nations, I think the plea would be avail- 
 able, and, if so, the Indian should have the benefit of it,^ 
 
 In consequence of this letter, the subject was referred to the Attorney 
 General, whose opinion I now present to the committee. 
 
 '•AxTORjfET General's Office, March 26, 1835." 
 •* Sir: In your letter of the 21st instant, after enclosing to me a communication of 
 Governor Eaton, in which he suggests doubts concerning the validity of the treaty 
 with the Seminole Indians, concluded on the 9ih of May, 1832, and ratified on the 9th 
 April, 1834, in consequence of the delay which took place in the ratification, you 
 requested my opinion upon the validity of the treaty, and upon the right of the United 
 States to remove these Indians in the years 1835, 1836, and 1837. 
 
 '♦ There is certainly great force in the suggestions made by Governor Eaton; and as 
 the Governmeii*^, in its relations with the Indians, is necessarily obliged to become, 
 for all practical purposes, its own interpreter and judge, it is under the highest obli- 
 gation to make no claim under the treaty, and to set up no construction of its terms, 
 which are not fairly authorized by its sense and spirit. And if it can be shown that a 
 material cltange of circumstances, connected with the question of removal, had actu- 
 ally occurred, during the period which elapsed between the signing and ratification of 
 tile treaty, then it is plain that the Indians can no longer be held to it, unless by some 
 act since its ratification they have recognised and affirmed its validity. In the present 
 case, as no time was limited for the ratification of the treaty; as the supplemental ar- 
 ticles of the 28th March, 1833, treated it as yet in existence, ahhough not tiien ratified 
 by the President and Senate; and as no material change of circumstances is suggested, 
 I think it must be deemed a valid and subsisting treaty. 
 
 "If the treaty be valid, the particular intent to remove in 1833, 1834, and 1835, must 
 yield to the general engagement to remove in three years from the ratification; and 
 the same provision must be made for the unforeseen case which has now arisen, which 
 was expressly made for the case anticipated. It was evidently the understanding and 
 the design of the parties that the removal should commence with the year following 
 the ratification, and that the tribe should remove in about equal proportions during that 
 and the two following years; consequently, they are now to be removed in the years 
 1835, 1836, and 1837. 
 
 "B. F. BUTLER." 
 
 I take it for granted that the Attorney General has made the best of his 
 case; and, with great deference, 1 will now proceed to examine the reasons 
 on which it is founded. 
 
 1st. "As no time was limited for the ratification of the treaty." But, sir, 
 the time for the commencement of its execution was fixed. The Seminoles 
 are to commence their removal in 1833. This could not be obligatory on 
 the Seminoles, unless the treaty was also obligatory on the United States — 
 unless the treaty was ratified. It was undoubtedly contemplated, at the time 
 of its being signed, that it would have been ratified in 1832. It was proper 
 that it should have been so done. The stipulations on both sides were set- 
 tled. All that remained to be done was to be done by the separate act of 
 the Seminoles; it required no assent on our part. Why should they be ask- 
 ed to do that act before we had said that, when done, it should be final? 
 But, before the ratification, the act of the Seminoles conferred no obligation 
 on us to ratify the treaty. Had it been immediately ratified, the Seminole 
 delegation must, if they wished to hold us to the treaty, have done the act
 
 13 
 
 required in season to have commenced the removal in 1833. If it was their 
 fault that the act was not performed in time to commence before 1835, they 
 could not hold us to the treaty, but on condition that they all removed in 
 that year. They could not avail themselves of their own dela}'. The 
 attorney general seems wholly to overlook the consideration, that we might 
 and ought, immediately, during the session of Congress, when the treaty was 
 returned, to have ratified it. But the delay of 1834 is solely imputable to 
 our own neglect. The supplemental treaty was received in September, 
 1833, and no appropriation was made to carry it into effect during 1834. 
 The principle of the Attorney General has no limit. If two years of the 
 period of the execution might elapse, why not the three years, or ten years? 
 
 2d. "As the supplemental articles of the 28th of March, 1833, treated it 
 as yet in existence, although not then ratified by the President and Senate." Is 
 it probable that the Seminole delegation knew whether it was ratified or not, 
 or the effect of treating it as an existing treaty? If they considered it had 
 been ratified, then they must have considered that the supplemental treaty 
 made it binding; but would their considering one way or the other impose 
 an obligation on the United States to ratify it? The signing the supplemen- 
 tal articles, then, did not make it binding on us or them. 
 
 3d. "As no material change of circumstances is suggested." And who, 
 sir, was there to suggest it? It was an ex parte hearing. The Seminoles 
 had no delegation there to make suggestions. The only thing before the 
 Attorney General seems to have been General Eaton's letter and the treaty. 
 But, considering this a treaty between two nations, admitting we have taken 
 upon ourselves to be our own interpreters on questions of construction, are 
 we entitled also to take upon ourselves to be the exclusive judges of the 
 situation of the Seminoles? Had not they at least an equal right to judge 
 of their own condition? They certainly had the best means of judging. 
 They required no suggestions. They had this right. The}' exercised it; 
 and of their determination we were informed before the ratification of the 
 treaty — so well informed of it, that, as I shall show hereafter, it was then 
 in contemplation that it might be necessary to use force to compel its execu- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Chairman, I have not yet done with the opinion of the Attorney Gene- 
 ral. I shall now rely upon it as an authority to show that the treaty was not 
 obligatory on the Seminoles; 1 shall show that " a material change of circum- 
 stances" connected with the question of removal had actually occurred during 
 the period which elapsed between the signing and ratification of the treaty. 
 
 What, sir, was the situation, or rather what were the " circumstances'''' of 
 the Seminoles when this treaty was signed? They were living separate from 
 the Creeks; they had had, from 1802 up to that time, a period of thirty years, 
 undisturbed possession of the negroes taken by them from the citizens of 
 Georgia. The claim of the people of Georgia was quieted by the Creek 
 treaty before mentioned, of 1821. Since that time, the Creeks had set up 
 no claim to them. No objection against the re-union of the Creeks and 
 Seminoles, according to their former condition, existed, or was known to ex- 
 ist, on the part of the Creeks. Under this state of things, the treaty was sign- 
 ed; and it was signed on the basis of the continuance of this state of things; 
 that the Seminoles should, as a separate band, be re-united to and form a 
 component part of the Creek nation, as one people. But what was the situa- 
 tion of the Seminoles — what were their " circumstances''^ when the treaty 
 was ratified, April 8, 1834? In the mean time, two material circumstances, 
 or rather, a change of two material circumstances had occurred.
 
 14 
 
 I. The Creeks had set up a claim to the negroes and their descendants, 
 taken by the Seminoles from the people of Georgia prior to 1802, under the 
 pretence that, on the payment of the $-250,000 under the treaty of 1821, they 
 became the property of tiie Creek nation, of which the Seminole band was a 
 part. This has been already sufficiently explained. To the Seminoles it was 
 no consolation that the claim was unjust; for, 
 
 2. The Creeks east had rei'used to sanction the agreement of the Creeks 
 west, allowing to the Seminoles a separate location. This was, in effect, a 
 refusal on the part of the Creeks to re-unite with the Seminoles. No, sir, 
 they would not re-unite, but insisted on an amalgamation. It was certain tliat 
 ,an amalgamation would subject this claim to the decision of the Creek coun- 
 cil; from which the Seminoles had nothing to hope. Sir, this was no pre- 
 tence. The objection was taken in good faith. You have the opinion of 
 (j'eneral Eaton that it was the essential cause of their unwillingness to go 
 at all. 
 
 The materiality of this change of circumstances is manifest; it was the es- 
 sential cause of the reluctance of the Seminoles to emigrate. In fine, it ren- 
 dered the execution of the treaty impracticable, consistently with the just rights 
 of the Seminoles; and had it existed at the date of t!ie treaty, th-st treaty would 
 not have been made. 
 
 These objections were communicated to our Government, as I have before 
 stated, prior to the ratification of the treaty; and so important were they then 
 deemed, that General Thompson, in his report of the 1st of January, 1834, 
 recommended "the polic\' of conclusively quieting the Creek claims, so as to 
 leave those Indians (the Seminoles) forever at rest upon the subject." 
 
 I will here remark, sir, that General Thompson, in a subsequent letter, sug- 
 gests a doubt as to the construction of the treaty of 1832 — whether it gave to 
 the Seminoles the right to a separate location, or obliged them to amalgamate. 
 He gave to it the former construction, though he thought it susceptible of the 
 latter. But, sir, we shall be placed in this dilemma: if the latter construction 
 be adopted, the location was void, as mads contrary to the treaty; if the for- 
 mer, then we are met by the refusal of the Creeks east; and in both we are 
 met by the fact of a material change of circumstances between the signing 
 and the ratification. 
 
 On the case as now made, I claim the authority of the opinion of the At- 
 torney General as decisive against the validity of the treaty: 
 
 " Unless, by some act since its r.itification, they have recog'nised and affirmed its va- 
 lidity." 
 
 But, sir, the Secretary of War, in his communication of the 25th of May, 
 this day laid on our tables, takes a new ground, with a view of making a case 
 within this exception. I did not expect it. Yet, sir, I am prepared to meet 
 it. (Referring to a transaction of the 23d of April, 1835, he says: 
 
 "In obedience to the resolution of tlie House of Representatives of tlie 2lst instant, 
 I liave the honor to stale that this Department has not received any information since 
 mv report of the 9th of Februurj', to the Senate, in answei- to their resolution of 
 February 3d, showing the causes tliat induced the Seminole Indians to commence hos- 
 tilities, so far as they were known here. The abstract contained in the report I have 
 the lionor to enclose; and I beg' leave, in addition, to state, tiiat it will appear, by refer- 
 ence thereto, and to the document submitted with it to the Senate, tlmt the complaints 
 of the Seminole Indians were investlsfated by General Clinch, (General Thompson, and 
 Lieutenant Harris; and that, on a full consideration of the whole matter in open council, 
 an arrangement was made to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, which was in the 
 following terms: 
 
 •'We, the undersigned chiefs and sub-chiefs of the Seminole tribe of Indians, do 
 hereby, for ourselves and for our people, voluntarily acknowledge the validity of the
 
 15 
 
 treaty between the United States and the Seminole nation of Indians, made and con- 
 cluded at Payne's Landiner, on the Ocklewaha river, on the 9th of May, 1832, and the 
 treaty between the United States and tlie Seminole nation of Indians, made and con- 
 cluded at Fort Gibson, on the 2Sth day of March, 1833, by Montford Stokes, II. L. 
 Ellsworth, and J. F. Schermerhorn, commissioners on tlie part of the United States, 
 and the delegates of the said nation of Seminole Indians on the part of the s-aid nation; 
 and we, the said chieis and sub-chiefs, do, for ourselves and for our people, freely and 
 fully assent to the above recited treaties, in all their provisions and stipulations. ^ 
 •' Done in council at the Seminole agency, this 23d day of April, 1835." — -— ^ 
 
 [Signed by sixteen chiefs and sub-chiefs.] 
 
 When 1 said that the Secretary had taken a new ground, 1 did not mean 
 to be understood that lliese articles were now for the first time published; 
 they were inserted in the answer to the call of the Senate of the 9lh February. 
 But, sir, this is the first declaration, in form, that they were relied on, by the 
 Executive, as a confirmation of the treaty, or that any obligation whatever was 
 intended to be inferred from them. 
 
 Passing by the question whether this act, on the face of it, committed the 
 Seminole tribe, I will now, sir, proceed to stale to the committee the circum- 
 stances under which it was executed; and here, too, I shall confine myself to 
 our own story, as recorded in the War Office. 
 
 On the 22d April, 1835, a council of the Seminole chiefs was assembled 
 by General Clinch and Captain Harris, of the army, and General Thompson, 
 the removing agent. Prior to this, they had been informed of the determina- 
 tion of the Seminoles, with few exceptions, not to execute the treaty; and 
 orders had been given to General Clinch to execute it by military force. An 
 account of the proceedings at this council is given in the joint letter of the 
 24th of April. 
 
 On the first day of the council, General Clinch said to the Seminoles: 
 
 "The time of expostulation had passed; that, already, too much had been said, and 
 nothing had been done; that the influence of the agents of Government, their powers 
 of persuasion and argument, had been exhausted, both in public councils and in private 
 interviews, to induce them to do right; that we had lingered long enough in the per- 
 formance of our duties to have averted, had they been willing, the evils that threatened 
 their foolish resistance to the fulfilment of pledges solemnly and fairly made by them; 
 and that now it was time to act. He had been sent here to enforce the treaty; he had 
 warriors enough to do it, and he would do it. It was the question now, whether they 
 would go of their own accord, or go by force." With this, they were told they might 
 depart; and until morning was given them to think upon wiiat had been said. "In the 
 course of the morning, eight principal chiefs gave their assent to abide by the stipulations 
 uf the treaty; five remained opposed to it." 
 
 . Micanopy was absent. " General Thompson had, upon the first Intimation in tlie council 
 of this day, of further resistance on the part of the chiefs, demanded of the chief Jumper 
 whether Micanopy (by whom he knew the movements of a number of them to be con- 
 trolled) intended to abide by the treaty or not? And when Jumper finally confessed 
 that he was authorized to say that Micanopy did not, he (Thompson) promptly declared 
 that he no longer considered Micanopy a chief; that his name sliouid be struck from 
 the council of the nation; that he should treat all who acted like him in the like manner; 
 and that he would neltlier acknowledge nor do business with him or with any other, as 
 a chief, who did not honestly comply with the terms of his engagements; that the door 
 was, however, still open to them, if they wished to act honestly." 
 
 " In consequence of this, the names of the Jive opposing chiefs [Micanopy not present] 
 were struck from the council of the nation." 
 
 All this preceded the signing the agreement; and under this threat and this act 
 the articles were signed. If an enemy in arms, force may compel the con- 
 quered to submit to any terms the conqueror may dictate; but, sir, what can 
 be said of this as a transaction between a civilized — a powerful nation — 
 and a small band of Indians, with whom we were at peace; and who then
 
 16 
 
 dared to claim what tliej now dare to defend? Sir, between civilized nations 
 It could not exist a moment. 
 
 But what do you think the Government said of this transaction? They 
 rebuked their agent for breaking the five chiefs; they acknowledged that the 
 assent of the chiefs to the articles was the effect of the menace. But what 
 was said of that menace? Sir, 1 will not rely on witnesses: I shall sustain 
 myself only by the record; and here it is. 
 
 The acting Secretary of War, on the 20tli May, 1835, in reply to it, 
 says: 
 
 'From your report, it appears that eight of the principal chiefs have signified, in 
 writing, their determination to abide by all the stipulations of the treaties of Payne's 
 Landing and Fort Gibson, and that five of the principal chiefs refused to acknowledge 
 them. The assent of the chiefs is to be attributed, it would seem, to the declaration of 
 General Clinch — that, if they declined to remove voluntarily, they would be removed 
 by force. The President approves of tltt€,declaration, upon a full consideration of the 
 circumstances under which it was made." 
 
 And what were those circumstances? " The Seminoles had trilled sufficiently 
 long with the most solemn treaty obligations, to wliich they had, in the first 
 instance, acceded, with a full understanding of their character, and the conse- 
 quences of which they had had, during three years, full opportunity to per- 
 ceive and appreciate." 
 
 And this is not all, sir. Mr. Thompson, in his letter of the 18lh June, in reply, 
 states that this declaration had been before repeated, under the authority of 
 the Department. 
 
 Such, sir, was the arrangement in open council, which, it is alleged, was 
 ^HTiade to the inutual satisfaction of the partiesi^ 
 
 II. That the Government has attempted to enforce the treaty, in violation 
 f its own construction. 
 
 The construction to which I refer is contained in the Attorney General's 
 opinion — tiiat the Seminoles were to be removed in the years 1835, 1836, 
 and 1837, instead of the years stipulated in the treaty. 
 
 In violation of this construction, the Government-4iave insisted to the Sem- 
 inoles that tiiey should all remove in the year 1835.. 
 
 General Thompson, in his letter of the 28th October, 1834, states that he 
 told the Seminoles, " 1 have come from the President to tell you" — " that you 
 must prepare to remove by the time the cold weather of the winter siiall 
 have passed away." The proposition was general. No intimation was 
 given that the}' were to be allowed a longer time. 
 
 In accordance with the principles of the subsequent opinion of the Attor- 
 ney General, the Secretary of War wrote to General Thompson, distinctly 
 stating that the part of the Seminoles required b}' the treaty to remove in 
 1833, should remove in 1835; and the plain inference from this letter was, 
 that the remainder should remove in 1836-'37. General Thompson, in his 
 letter of the 28th December, states that this letter was read in council to the 
 Seminoles. But how was it understood by the Seminoles? Was it made the 
 basis of any proposition? No, sir; the language to them was the same as 
 had been held to them in October. He says that in council " I read your 
 speech, explained it, and enlorced it by such considerations as occurred to 
 me; of which, however, my talk to them in council in October last may, in 
 substance, be considered a transcript. I repeated what I had told them be- 
 fore, that they would be compelled by force to remove, if they did not do so 
 willingly," &c. In his letter of the 27th January following, he states, " I 
 have heretofore (when?) submitted to the Secretary of War some reasons
 
 17 
 
 why the Indians should be removed all at the same time, hy water.'''' And 
 finally, on ihe 9lh March, General Clinch states to the adjutant general, "In 
 all the communications- 1 have had with the chiefs, I have held out the idea, 
 that as the three years stipulated in the treaty was about expiring, the whole 
 nation would be required to remove this spring." 
 
 The President's talk of the 16th February, 1835, is also in accordance 
 with the opinion of the Attorney General — that the Seminoles were entitled 
 to the years 1835,-'36,-'37 in which to remove. 
 
 It appears from the joint letter of Clinch, Thompson, and Harris, of the 
 24th April, 1835, that this talk was read in council on the 22d. And how 
 too was this understood by the Serainolesl Was it made the basis of any 
 proposition? It was not. This, sir, is the proper place to notice the residue 
 of the statement of the Secretary of War of the 25th May last — that " the 
 officers charged with the arrangement of this affair [the arrangement of the 
 23d of April, 1835,] then made an agreement with the Indians by which 
 they were all to be removed during the succeeding January. These pro- 
 ceedings were approved by the President, and the n)atter was considered as 
 definitively and satisfactorily arranged;" — " and that whatever they [the objec- 
 tions to removal] were, the above agreement put an end to them, and left to 
 the Seminoles but one course to pursue, which was an entire removal in Jan- 
 uary, 1836." 
 
 The committee will call to mind the occurrences in the council of the 22d 
 and 23d of April, when it is alleged this agreement was made. It opened 
 with the declaration of General Clinch, that " noiv was the time to act; 
 ** that he had been sent here to enforce the treaty; that he had warriors 
 " enough to do it, and he would do it. It was the question n«ic, whether they 
 *' would go of their own accord, or go by force." That until morning 
 time was given them to think of it; that in the morning, the names of five op- 
 posing chiefs were stricken from the council of the nation; and that, under 
 this menace of instant force, the eight chiefs signed what has been called 
 " the arrangement to the mutual satisfaction of both parties^ This arrange- 
 ment purported merely to be an assent to the stipulation of the treaty. It 
 was silent as to the time of removal. From what, then, is the assent of the 
 chiefs to remove in January inferred? I again refer to our own story: " The 
 friendly chiefs, whilst assenting to go, begged they might not be hurried away; 
 they did not expect to go this year; the season was far advanced, and they 
 wanted time to gather their crops, and settle their little business." Sir, they 
 begged for a reprieve from the immediate execution of the sentence, and that 
 reprieve was granted. The letter states: " Under these circumstances, we 
 deemed it our duty to say to the friendly chiefs, that we would give their peo- 
 ple until the 1st of December to reap their crops, and to complete their pre- 
 parations; but that as soon after that time as we could make ourselves ready, 
 every Indian in Florida would be started upon his journey to the new 
 country." 
 
 Such is the agreement which it is now insisted put an end to the objec- 
 tion of the Indians to their removal, and left them but one course to adopt — 
 an entire removal in January, 1836. If the proposition was ever made by 
 our agent for a removal in 1835,-'6,-'7, other than I have stated, I have not 
 been able to find the record of it. 
 ^ III. The Government have attempted to execute the treaty by an act of 
 ■( war, before any act of hostility was committed by the Seminoles. 
 
 On examining the correspondence, I find, sir, that the menace of force has 
 accompanied all our overtures, even prior to the ratification of the treaty. 
 2
 
 18 
 
 On the 21st of Februar}', 1834, the Secretary of War, in a letter to Gov- 
 ernor Duval, uses this language: 
 
 V "The Government uses no compulsion with the Indians. It is left to their free 
 choice, in the first case, to go or stay; but after that choice is fully and freely made, 
 and they have obligated themselves to remove^ the Government will employ the neces- 
 sary measures to enforce their removal." .,-' ' 
 
 In the council of the 23d of April, the Seminoles were told, " You must go 
 to the west; your father the President will compel you to go." 
 
 The talk of the Secretary of War of the 22d of November, 1834, says, 
 " The President has directed a body of soldiers to be sent into your country." 
 
 This letter was preceded by General Thompson's letter, (of the 28ih Oc- 
 tober,) saying, that " a full view of all the circumstances leaves me without 
 doubt that these deluded people are determined to resist the execution 
 of the treaty." 
 
 On the 24th November, 1834, orders were given to march troops to Forts 
 r Brooke and King, and for General Clinch to co-operate with them. 
 / On the 28th December, General Thompson says, that at the council of 
 
 the 26th, " I repeated what I had told them before, that they would be com- 
 pelled by force to remove, should they not do so willingly." 
 
 On the 27th of January, 1835, General Thompson suggested to the De- 
 partment that the military force in Florida was insufficient. 
 
 In the President's talk of the 16th February, 1835, the Indians were told, 
 " I have ordered a large military force sent among you, &c. &c.; listen to 
 the voice of friendship, you will go quietly; but should you listen to bad 
 birds that are flying about you, and refuse to remove, I have then directed the 
 commanding officer to remove you by force. This will be done," &c. 
 
 On the 8th March, Governor Eaton requested General Clinch to delay the 
 execution of the orders until he should receive an answer to his letter to the 
 Secretary of War of that date. 
 
 On the 26th March, the Attorney General gave his opinion; and on the 
 14th April, liie Secretary of War wrote to General Clinch, that "if they 
 (the Seminoles) all be willing to remove this year, it will certainly be better 
 to remove them; but, in that case, let a written agreement be drawn up, stat- 
 ing the reasons of the delay, their entire readiness to remove by the time, 
 and go in a body, and by such route as you and General Thompson shall 
 think best for them and most economical to the Government; but if they are 
 opposed to this, and will generally agree quietly to remove by the 1st of March, 
 or as soon as arrangements can be made, they may be suffered to remain until 
 that time. Should the Seminoles, however, peremptorily decline to pledge 
 themselves peaceably to remove next season, you will then proceed to carry 
 into effect the instructions heretofore given." \ 
 
 This order produced the menace of Clinch, in the council of the 22d of 
 April, " that he had warriors enough," &c. «fcc. 
 
 On the 20lh May, the Secretary of War, in reply to their joint letter of 
 the 24lh, wrote to Thompson, Clinch, and Harris, (referring to the letter 
 above, of the 14th April,) " If, as stated in that letter, the Indians will gene- 
 rally agree quietly to remove by the time you have designated, and will sig- 
 nify their agreement in writing in the manner therein pointed out, no objections 
 will be made to the postponement. But the Indians must understand that 
 their removal will be enforced in conformity with the treaty." , 
 
 C About the 3d June, Powell, (Oseola,) one of the most bold, daring, and 
 Jntrepid chiefs in his nation, on account of his insolence, was put in
 
 19 
 
 irons — put an Indian chief in irons! On his release, he appeared friend- 
 ly — who that knows the Indian character could rely on such appearance? ; 
 
 The next unfortunate occurrence was on the 18th June, when seven white 
 men, meeting five Indians, took away their rifles, flogged four of them with 
 cowhides, and, otiier Indians coming to their relief, a fight ensued, in which 
 three white men were wounded and one Indian was killed. Our officer 
 demanded the Indian aggressors; and, what is more extraordinary, they 
 were delivered up. 
 
 On the 11th August, the Seminoles killed a soldier, while carrying the 
 mail, in retaliation for the Indian killed by the whites, and declared themselves 
 satisfied. This was regarded in its proper light by our officer — as a mere act 
 tif retaliation. 
 
 On the 30th of November, the Seminoles killed one of their chiefs, who 
 had been friendly to their emigration; and immediately all the friendly Indi- 
 ans^ to the number of four or five hundred, fled to Fort Brooke for protec- 
 tion. \ This act was deemed decisive that the Indians would resist their re- 
 moval by force. It was now, sir, no longer a question of menace. It was a 
 question of war — of the employing a military force to execute a treaty* 1 
 characterize the aict by the term applied to it by General Eaton in advance. 
 In his letter of the 8th of March, he says, in reference to the execution of the 
 treaty;-" the employing a military force will be an act of war, and," further, 
 " the Indians will embody and fight in their defence.''^ 
 
 Our military force, consisting of twelve companies, immediately concen- 
 trated; and, on the 23d, a corps of two hundred men attempted to march 
 through what might then be called the enemi/^s country^ Thus, we had march- 
 ed a military force into their country, for the purpose, repeatedly declared 
 to the Seminoles, of removing them by force; and thus was the act of war 
 completed before a single hostile act was committed by the Seminoles. The 
 Seminoles, fulfilling the prediction of General Eaton, "embodied and fought 
 in their (/e/cnce;" and the fate of the unfortunate Dade was told by only 
 three of his men. Here, sir, I leave the war aTjts commencement. How 
 the battle has fared since, 1 leave to others to say^ 
 
 It is proper, however, and it is just, to say, that the administration here 
 must necessarily judge of the state of things in Florida through the represent- 
 ations of their agents on the spot; that, from the first question of the execution 
 of the treaty, all our officers and agents there strongly recommended the exe- 
 cution of the treat}' by a military force; and, so far as it was intended to pro- 
 duce an eflfect as a menace, though a policy of a doubtful character, it might, 
 in a just cause, be excused, if not justified. But, sir, if the question I have 
 asked. Is our quarrel just? be answered in the negative, we must stand as 
 the aggressors, without cause and without justification. 
 
 But, sir, take it for granted that the treaty was obligatory, and that we had 
 only insisted on its just execution; the question then arises, has the Exec- 
 utive the power to execute a treaty by an act of war? It is the duty of the 
 President to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, but by such 
 means, and by such only, as the constitution or the laws have provided. To 
 Congress it belongs to make all laws necessary and proper for the execution 
 of the special grants conferred upon Congress, and of all other powers vested by 
 the constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Depart- 
 ment or officer thereof. The execution of a treaty by force, or attempting 
 to obtain satisfaction by force, is virtually an act of war; and this power is 
 vested in Congress alone. 
 
 In regard to our own citizens, treaties are the supreme law of the land,
 
 20 
 
 and are executed as such; but, as between the parties, they are naatters of com- 
 pact, in which each part}' judges for itself, and seeks its remedies under the 
 laws of nations; and the exclusive right which we have assumed to judge for 
 both parties defines our power, but not our right. This, however, cannot 
 change the character of treaties with the Indian tribes, and reduce them from 
 compacts to laws. 
 
 The action of the Executive, in the cases of the Seminoles and the Creeks, 
 thougli directly opposite, is within the same principle. In the case of the 
 Seminoles, an attempt was made to execute a treaty by an act of war. In 
 the case of the Creeks, the attempt is to violate a treaty by an act of the 
 same character. 
 
 I forbear, Mr. Chairman, to comment on a variety of minor considerations 
 which may have had an influence in favor of or against the voluntary removal 
 of the Seminoles, or in adding to the excitement produced by the principal 
 facts in the case — the desire of the whites to retain or to purchase their 
 slaves, and to obtain their lands per fas aut nefas, operating on the one hand 
 to obstruct their removal, and on the other to induce their immediate 
 removal by force. 
 
 ^-What, Mr. Chairman, may be, if not the probable, the possible effect of the 
 adoption of the amendment of the committee? It will be considered by the 
 Executive as aaauthority, as a warrant, for the removal of the whole Creek 
 nation by force- Is there not danger that it may excite the whole nation, or 
 a large portion, to make common cause with the Seminoles? They will take 
 courage from their success. They will, to use the language of General 
 Eaton, " take up the tomahawk in despair." It may be a war to them of ex- 
 termination, and to us of great peril. What are your present relations with 
 the Cherokees — a tribe which, since your first treaty with them, has never 
 taken the scalp of a white man — a tribe which has borne and forborne? But, 
 sir, have you done any thing of late calculated to prolong that forbearance? 
 Sir, I learn from a publication in the Globe, that we have lately made a treaty 
 with them, by which we have fulfilled our longing desires of acquiring a cession 
 of all their lands. I learn, also, from other sources, that this treaty has been 
 made with one-tenth of the tribe against the remonstrance of the remainder. 
 What state of feeling will grow out of this, it is impossible to say. I hope, 
 sir, they will acquiesce in the treaty, if not in its justice — fully believing 
 that, as circumstanced, their happiness will be promoted by their removal. 
 But, sir, they will judge for themselves. The force of the Indians east of 
 the Mississippi is competent to much mischief. In a war, which may be- 
 come a war of extermination, is it wise to provoke new enemies to " raise 
 the tomahawk in despair?"^ You may probably rate the force of the Semi- 
 noles at 1,500; the Creeks at 3,500; the Cherokees at 3,000; the Choctaws 
 and Chickasaws, and others that are vagrant remnants of tribes, at 2,000 
 more — a force of 10,000 warriors. The modern Indian wars of the South 
 are not of the character of those of Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, of for- 
 mer days. Then, on the attack, the settlers flew to the rescue; now, sir, 
 the flight is in any other direction. Causes over which individuals, perhaps, 
 have no control, have given an entire diflerent character to our defence. And 
 is there no danger that an Indian war ma}' connect itself with a war of ano- 
 ther character? Sir, those who are the most interested will judge in what 
 scale to place these apprehensions. I trust in God they may never become 
 realities. 
 
 But, sir, what is proposed to be done with the Indians? To remove them 
 with all their hostile feelings — to remove J^^ijapec? Indians to the west of Mis-
 
 2J 
 
 souri and Arkansas, and plant thena there! What have you gained, but to 
 change the scene, and to increase your danger? You place them there to ex- 
 cite the surrounding tribes to war on your whole western frontier — tribes who 
 can bring into the battle 30,000 warriors, and sustain them, too. They can 
 choose their point of attack, and retreat at pleasure, where you cannot follow, 
 to return to the attack in sonne other quarter — tribes, too, which can be sup- 
 plied with arms by a neighboring nation, which is not, perhaps, now in the 
 best state of feelings towards you. Grant, sir, that these are mere possible 
 dangers; yet should we not be put on our guard even against remote contin- 
 gencies'? Why should we add further cause for increasing the hostilities which 
 now exist? Why continue even these hostilities, if they can be avoided? Must 
 we continue the Seminole war for another campaign? What new laurels are to 
 be won? It is asked, is it practicable to end the war without further slaugh- 
 ter? Sir, on this subject I rely entirely on the opinion of those better ac- 
 quainted with the character of the southern Indians than myself; and, from 
 the opinions of those entitled to confidence, I am satisfied that it is practica- 
 ble, and that while our army is in summer quarters, the war might be ended. 
 Sir, the experiment is worth the attempt; if we fail, nothing is lost. 
 
 I cannot but recur to the period when the system of removal commenced; 
 when the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Bell) introduced the bill of 1830. 
 Predictions were then made, which were treated as impossibilities; but, sir, 
 they will soon be a part of our recorded history. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Tallahassee, A/arch 8, 1835. 
 
 Sir: I have received your letter, with its'enclosures, relative to removing (he 
 Seminole Indians, under the provisions of the treaty of 1832, but which was 
 not ratified until 1834. I pray you, does not this circumstance raise a doubt 
 whether, by strict rule, the treaty can be considered valid and binding? Our 
 Indian compacts must be construed, and be controlled, by the rules which 
 civilized people practise; because, in all our actions with them, we have put 
 the treaty-making machinery in operation precisely in (he same way, and to 
 the same extent, (hat it is employed with the civilized Powers of Europe. The 
 rule practised upon by us has been, and is, that the ratification shall take place 
 within either an agreed time or in a reasonable time. 
 
 When Florida was ceded, in 1819, the Cortes failed to exchange ratifica- 
 tions within the prescribed time, and afterwards, at a subsequent session, it was 
 assented to by the Spanish Cortes. The sense of this Government was, 
 that the first ratification made by (he Senate was inoperative; and again the 
 subject wa« submitted, by Mr. Monroe, for the ac(ion and approval of the 
 Senate. This appears to me to be a precedent which runs parallel with this 
 Indian compact. It says, one-third shall remove (he first year, viz: as early as 
 practicable in 1833, and one-third in the next, and the next, 1834 and '35. Now, 
 until 1834, when the ratification took place, the treaty was a dead letter. It 
 is in their power now to plead and to say, we were ready in 1833 and '34, and, 
 hearing nothing of your determination, we had a right to suppose that you did 
 not mean to stand by the treaty, and accordingly our minds have changed. 
 With civilized nations, I think the plea would be available; and, if so, the In- 
 dian should have the benefit of it. 
 
 Were these people willing voluntarily to remove, (though such seems not 
 to be the case,) the whole difliculty would be cured, and no evil could arise. 
 But as military force is about to be resorted to, it is material that the Govern-
 
 22 
 
 ment, before making such appeal, be satisfied tiiat right and justice are on their 
 side; and that they are not engaged in the execution of a treaty which, if void, 
 is no part of the law of the land. I feel so strongly the force of these objec- 
 tions, and am so desirous that General Jackson shall avoid every thing of sup- 
 posed error, that I shall today, unauthorized as I am, write to General 
 Clinch, and request him not to act with force^ until he shall hear again from 
 you. This he may probably do; and hence the propriety of your considering 
 my suggestion, and advising him as early as possible. 
 
 Should you at Washington, who have books to resort to, to solve the doubt 
 I have mentioned, come to the conclusion that it is tenable, why then the 
 subject of the removal, and the manner of it, are unnecessary to be examined. 
 An attempt must then be made to go into some new negotiation. If there be 
 nothing in the proffered objections, then the best mode of starting them away 
 recurs. 
 
 The employing a military force will be an act of war, and the Indians will 
 embody and fight in their defence. In this event, you will want such an im- 
 posing force as shall overawe resistance. The few companies you have ordered 
 will not produce this result. They will serve but to begin the fight, and 
 to awaken angry feelings; so that, in the sequel, the militia will have to be 
 called, which will end in the butchery of these miserable people. Send a 
 strong imposing regular force, which can be commanded and prevented from 
 doing more than actually is needful to be done; and then that force, judi- 
 ciously acting and forbearing, may do much. But send only a handful of men, 
 and difficulties will come upon you. 
 
 The next thing will be to have suitable transports, of seven or eight feet 
 draught, lying at Tampa Bay, well provisioned, to receive them; for, sure as 
 you seek a passage over land, they will desert into swamps, and elude your 
 pursuits. They are afraid to go by land. Bad men will raise up fiilse accounts, 
 arrest and throw them in jail, whereby to enfi)rce payment. The fate of their 
 chief, Blunt, last year at New Orleans, they fear will be theirs- Taking them 
 by water to the Mississippi river, and there placing them in boats, with posi- 
 tive orders not to land or stop at any town or city, will prevent this disturb- 
 ance to them. In three or four days the voyage can be made from Tampa 
 Bay to the Balize, at a much reduced cost to what a land travel northwardly 
 would amount to. 
 
 There is another difficulty in the minds of these people, and it is this: A 
 separate tract out of the Creek lands has been set apart for their homes. There 
 is a ratified treaty in your office, made by General Stokes, Ellsworth, and 
 Schermerhorn, with the Creeks, which authorizes the Seminole location. While 
 negotiating with the Indians last year, at Washington, I understood that the 
 Creeks discovered this act, and had sent word to the Seminole bands, that, 
 while they were willing to receive them in their limits as a portion of their 
 nation, they would not suffer them to enjoy any separate allotment of their soil. 
 This, too, has intimidated them, and, I dare say, is the essential cause of their 
 reluctance to go off To cure this, either the Creeks west should be gotten to 
 say that the allotment made shall be for the exclusive separate use of the 
 Florida Indians; or the latter should be prevailed upon, for some adequate 
 compensation, to agree to go and amalgamate with the tJreeks. Another mode 
 of prevailing on these people to remove, would be, to give orders to the troops 
 to prevent them from raising corn this year: this is almost as severe a remedy 
 as employing your bayonets. But the effect will be, that, towards autumn, 
 their necessities will compel them to depart-LTo go or starve, would then be 
 the question. 
 
 General Thompson was here a few days since, and found a letter for him 
 from the Department. He should not be addressed here, but at the Semi- 
 nole agency, distant from this place, I believe, one hundred and fifty miles- 
 
 This Indian question of removal is one that should be managed with great 
 caution and care, that the enemies in Congress, ever ready to find fault, may 
 have no just and tenable ground on which to rest their rumors. Tread cau- 
 tiously, then. The people here want the lands on which they reside, and they 
 will urge a removal, /as aut nefas; and the Big Swamp, which in the treaty is
 
 23 
 
 declared to be the first of their country to be vacated, is of high repute, and 
 it is that on which the eyes of speculators are] fixed- But whether they shall 
 have it this year or the next, or the next thereafter, is of less importance to the 
 country, than that any thing shall be done calculated (o impair the character 
 of the Government for justice, and for equitable and fair dealing. Whence 
 the necessity of any speedy removal? Presently, if left alone, these Indians 
 will go of their own accordj because they cannot avoid it. To stay, is to starve; 
 and nature and its demands will soon tell them more, and better, and more 
 convincing things on this subject, than you and the President can write. 
 Then they will go, and go without any interruption to the quiet and harmony 
 of the country. Now, with all your efforts, and the army to aid you, they 
 could not be carried oft' and gotten to their western homes before June or 
 July. Then, no crop could be raised, and for two years they will be without 
 provisions. The preferred and preferable course, I think, will be to send 
 amongst them active and intelligent men to court them to what is right, in 
 the hope that, during the year, their minds may be so prepared as to be in- 
 duced to depart during November; at least, that they may reach their homes 
 in time to raise corn the succeeding year. On the whole, to conclude a tiresome 
 letter, I ofter this advice: avoid the exercise oi force as long as possible; and 
 let it be the only, the last sad alternative; and then let not, by any means, the 
 militia be applied to — they will breed misdiief- 
 
 With great respect, 
 
 J. H. EATON. 
 Lewis Cass, Secretary of War. 
 
 Tallahassee, March 8, 1835. 
 
 Sir: I have received from the Secretary of War a letter asking me to 
 suggest t(» him any views I might entertain as to the removal of the Seminole 
 Indians. Enclosed in his communication was a copy of a letter addressed by 
 you to the adjutant general, dated 22d January, 1835; a reply to it by the 
 Secretary, of the 16th February; with a talk from the President, also dated 16th 
 February. In reply, I have offered my opinions freely and frankly; and, 
 amongst other things suggested, whether the treaty of 1832 be not void, for 
 want of timely ratification. If this be so, it will be unfortunate that the mili- 
 tary force of the country be actively employed. 
 
 In my letter I have said, "by the next mail (unauthorized) I shall write to 
 General Clinch, and suggest to him not to employ force towards the removal, 
 until he shall again hear from you. He may, perhaps, under all the circum- 
 stances, accord to my request; and hence the necessity of your speedily inform- 
 ing him of the course he shall pursue." If, under the orders given, you shall 
 think you can practise forbearance until the Secretary is again heard from, I 
 shall be glad; because my opinion is, there is greater safety in the course. But 
 of this you alone are to judge, under the responsibility of the orders which have 
 been forwarded to you. 
 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 J. H. EATON. 
 To General D. L. Clinch.
 
 UNIV. OP CALIF. LIBRARY, LOS AITGELBS 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 
 m 
 
 MAR 3 119" 
 
 
 UfR20 m 
 
 4WKMAYt8l994 
 JUtll5199|t 
 
 50m-7,'69(N296s4) — C-120
 
 5 ■^^■ 
 
 3 1158 00663 61 (
 
 '^"z: . ■tK-.<v*'K.i-